Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
“One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825)
Compare the following quote in Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address:
“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
thank you, sir: I am gratified to know that my faith in your ability to bolster my poor words with the definitive thoughts of the Founders was well grounded.
I have no problem with amending the Constitution to term limit judges but do not want them to be less independent or subject to political pressure from any direction. But I would not want to see terms of less than 10 to 20 years.
It is doubtful whether any amendment could be passed today though. It is not the shorter terms that pose a danger to me but making them subject to popular opinion.
Having contrary opinions is not the same as violating their oath of office no matter what you might think. Not having the same understanding (or lack thereof) as you is NOT a violation of their oath of office.
You are still spreading the LIE that the Justices used foreign law as the "basis" for their decisions. Who in their right mind would trust one who knowingly spreads this lie to decide what is constitutional or not?
And breading an oath was not sufficient grounds for a challenge those were limited to aspersions upon one's honor.
You have repeatedly called for impeachments based upon their rulings contrary to the intention of the Founders and American history. Calling those rulings a violation of their oaths does not change that reality.
The unconcious arrogance shown by the justices is dismaying indeed. Have they even read the Constitution? They certainly don't understand it.
There are few more pleasant sights than watching Jefferson's frustration with Marshall grow through the years knowing that he was beyond his demagogery and lies. He would appoint a good Republican to the Court then have to sit and watch as Marshall converted him through his wisdom, unparalleled legal talent and humanity.
Compared to Marshall's legal talent J was a nothing and his appointment to the Court was Adam's greatest blessing to the nation. J's views of the Constitution would have had a disastrous result and would have meant that there was no Constitution in anything but name. They are ludicrous and an embarassment to a great man.
You have repeatedly called for impeachments based upon their rulings contrary to the intention of the Founders and American history.
You can't post any proof of your pitiful allegations, can you? --- Clearly, your imagination is out of control.
Calling those rulings a violation of their oaths does not change that reality.
Again... Your imagination is out of control. You are reduced to denying the facts of what I've written on this thread.
Just what do you think "conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties" means?
Kennedy et alia cite three things as basis for their descision:
1. a "changed" meaning of the constitution
2. a "consensus" of state law
3. the overwhelming opinion of foreign law
to which, the facts rebut:
1. the constitution has not been changed, as neither an amendment to that effect nor a constitutional convention has transpired
2. there is no such consensus: the majority of those states permitting capital punishment at all also permit the putting to death of those under 18 years.
so... legs one and two of the justification for the descision are GONE.
this leaves one argument alone as the sole support for the descision: foreign trends.
That, o dancing fool, means the ruling DEPENDS on foreign law.
you are incorrect. learn. get over it. it happens.
Now, that trivia disposed of, let us to the true idiocy of your latest post turn in earnest.
You now maintain that the mechanisms for altering the Constitution are a matter of OPINION???
You are daft, sir. DAFT.
Adding new falsehoods to old does not change anything. No one ever claimed that their opinions used foreign law as a basis. Nor that they checked to see if a majority of states believed one way or the other about the execution of young killers. It is also disingenous to try and claim that using only those states which allow the Death Penalty as a source of consensus wrt young killers is appropriate. Should the American people be polled on this issue do you have any doubt it would say "no teenage executions"?
There is no doubt that the meaning of the phrase "cruel and unusual" has changed. Now hanging is considered cruel, firing squads are cruel, the electric chair is cruel but they were not at various times in our history. Hanging young killers is now cruel but did not used to be thought so. Though I am sure there have been very few teenagers executed in our nation's history. Nor did the Founders limit the concept of cruel or unusual to what Americans thought about it particularly since their views of law came directly from European sources.
And there is no doubt that the Founders wrote that phrase knowing that it would not mean the same in 2005 as it did in 1789 THEY weren't idiots.
Just what do you think "conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties" means?
Why should I guess what your point is? Answer your own question by making that point.
Your 'reasoning' on this issue is baffling, yet you refuse to explain it in detail.
Marshall's vision never changed from the time he was appointed and Jefferson's hatred of him predated that event in any case. He was frustrated because he considered Marshall as a bastion of Federalism.
Officials cannot pick and choose which laws they consider constitutional. That is a sure way to Judicial Balkanization and National disintegration. Do you seriously believe a government can exist if the Secretary of Defense has a different operative view of the Constitution than the Attorney General or the governor of New York? There is only one federal law in existence at a particular moment in time not 50 or 100.
Those who believe a law to be unconstituion are limited to challenging it in court but are not free to disregard it without a judicial order staying it.
Answer my question with something other than another question. That is the phrase used in the quotation from Rehnquist. You are all in an uproar about his comment so I am asking you to tell me what you believe it means or what it means to you.
In post 177, I finally gave up trying to have any usefull discourse with him. And when I posted post #142 I should have quit.
You have all been far more eloquent than I, in stating the obvious.
For that you are to be congradulated.
It has been an interesting lesson for me in blind eye absurdity.
Marshall's main point in Marbury is that any law, made at any level of fed, state or local government -- or any court ruling on a law, -- is null and void if it does not conform to the US Constitutions principles.
-- And that all judges & officials at any level are honor bound by their oaths of office to reject such repugnant laws, refuse to enforce them, or work to repeal them.
Obviously this is not being done, and it is a failure of our political system, not one of our Constitution .. 211
Officials cannot pick and choose which laws they consider constitutional.
-- All judges & officials at any level are honor bound by their oaths of office to reject repugnant laws, refuse to enforce them, or work to repeal them.
That is a sure way to Judicial Balkanization and National disintegration.
Read Marbury. -- Marshall's main point is that any law, made at any level of fed, state or local government -- or any court ruling on a law, -- is null and void if it does not conform to the US Constitutions principles.
Do you seriously believe a government can exist if the Secretary of Defense has a different operative view of the Constitution than the Attorney General or the governor of New York?
I seriously believe that Article VI says that all judges & officials at any level of government in the USA are honor bound by their oaths of office to reject repugnant laws, refuse to enforce them, or work to repeal them.
There is only one federal law in existence at a particular moment in time not 50 or 100. Those who believe a law to be unconstituion are limited to challenging it in court but are not free to disregard it without a judicial order staying it.
Marshall disagreed in 1803. You really do need to study Marbury, my boy..
Buby.
Instructions from you to study Marbury are hilarious. Marshall never said government officials can ignore laws they consider "repugnant" nor has any other rational person. Each and every individual does not have the option of deciding which laws are acceptable the him. There are many I would consider "repugnant" and would like to ignore but I don't have that freedom.
Of course you have shifted your claim to add "or work to repeal them." This is, of course, what I have been saying all along. But they have no right to reject any law just because they THINK it is unconstitutional. EVERY law passed by Congress is constitutional until the Court rules otherwise. It can be lawfully ignored only when there is a judicial order staying its operation.
Just what do you think "conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties" means?
Why should I guess what your point is? Answer your own question by making that point.
Your 'reasoning' on this issue is baffling, yet you refuse to explain it in detail.
Answer my question with something other than another question.
Sorry kid, I don't have to play by your silly rules & demands.
That is a phrase used in the quotation from Rehnquist. You are all in an uproar about his comment so I am asking you to tell me what you believe it means or what it means to you.
We've been arguing that point, and I've explained my position on his quote for quite some time, citing our Constitution & Justice Marshall to illustrate my view.
Now its your turn to explain your position, or to rebut mine, --- in detail..
Feel free. -- Or, justshutup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.